[Peace-discuss] Obama and the US use of military force

[Morton K. Brussel]

In other words, we have to make bad choices.  --mkb

On Feb 6, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:

> I worry that there is a dynamic in the discussion about Obama that
> folks are allowing themselves to be provoked into taking positions
> that US peace activists should not be taking.
>
> Whether we know for sure exactly what Obama told the Tribune doesn't
> really matter that much, because there is a well-documented public
> record that Obama - like Clinton and Edwards - advocated the potential
> use of military force against Iran in circumstances that would clearly
> violate international law.
>
> Under international law, there are basically 3 possibilities for the
> use of military force:
>
> - self-defense against armed attack
> - authorized by the UN Security Council
> - committing a war crime
>
> C, O, and E all moved substantially from their previous positions,
> which is a very positive development that it is important to note, for
> which the lion's share of the credit should go to public pressure and
> the fact that we have at least somewhat competitive elections.
> (although they should get some credit - because they deserve at least
> some credit but more importantly because it is strategic to give them
> some credit.)
>
> Nonetheless, none of them ever explicitly repudiated the notion that
> the US can unilaterally attack Iran whenever it suits the US to do so
> (note the FCNL chart on this point), and that's a very, very bad
> thing, which should not in any way be minimized.
>
> I would much, much rather face the problem of dealing with President
> Obama than the problem of dealing with President Clinton, and I would
> 10^6 rather face the problem of dealing with President Obama or
> President Clinton than the problem of dealing with President McCain.
>
> But it's not going to be all ponies and unicorns if Obama is elected
> President. Obama shares the Washington establishment view that the US
> is uniquely endowed by Providence to decide for itself when it gets to
> use violence. If he is elected President, the possibility that he
> might try to act on that belief - for example, in Pakistan - cannot be
> ruled out. If he does, resistance is going to be quite a challenge.
> There is no reason to let down our guard.
>
> Judging that the best plausible outcome of the electoral game from
> this point is for Obama to win - my own view, but not something we can
> know - doesn't require drinking the Kool-Aid.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss